A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 1, part 2: John Adams

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents Volume 4, part 1: William Henry Harrison

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 1, part 1: George Washington

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 2, part 3: Andrew Jackson, 1st term

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 7, part 1: Ulysses S. Grant

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 3, part 2: Martin Van Buren

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 3, part 1: Andrew Jackson (Second Term)

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 6, part 1: Abraham Lincoln

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 6, part 2: Andrew Johnson

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 5, part 3: Franklin Pierce

situated would not pay its fair value for land when by crossing theMississippi he could go upon the public lands and obtain a farm almostwithout money and without price.

6. This bill will open one vast field for speculation. Men will not pay$1.25 for lands when they can purchase them for one-fifth of that price.Large numbers of actual settlers will be carried out by capitalists uponagreements to give them half of the land for the improvement of theother half. This can not be avoided. Secret agreements of this kind willbe numerous. In the entry of graduated lands the experience of the LandOffice justifies this objection.

7. We ought ever to maintain the most perfect equality between nativeand naturalized citizens. They are equal, and ought always to remainequal, before the laws. Our laws welcome foreigners to our shores, andtheir rights will ever be respected. Whilst these are the sentiments onwhich I have acted through life, it is not, in my opinion, expedient toproclaim to all the nations of the earth that whoever shall arrive inthis country from a foreign shore and declare his intention to become acitizen shall receive a farm of 160 acres at a cost of 25 or 20 centsper acre if he will only reside on it and cultivate it. The invitationextends to all, and if this bill becomes a law we may have numerousactual settlers from China and other Eastern nations enjoying itsbenefits on the great Pacific Slope. The bill makes a distinction infavor of such persons over native and naturalized citizens. When appliedto such citizens, it is confined to such as are the heads of families,but when applicable to persons of foreign birth recently arrived on ourshores there is no such restriction. Such persons need not be the headsof families provided they have filed a declaration of intention tobecome citizens. Perhaps this distinction was an inadvertence, butit is, nevertheless, a part of the bill.

8. The bill creates an unjust distinction between persons claiming thebenefit of the preemption laws. Whilst it reduces the price of the landto existing preemptors to 62-1/2 cents per acre and gives them a crediton this sum for two years from the present date, no matter how long theymay have hitherto enjoyed the land, future preemptors will be compelledto pay double this price per acre. There is no reason or justice in thisdiscrimination.

9. The effect of this bill on the public revenue must be apparent toall. Should it become a law, the reduction of the price of land toactual settlers to 25 cents per acre, with a credit of five years, andthe reduction of its price to existing preemptors to 62-1/2 cents peracre, with a credit of two years, will so diminish the sale of otherpublic lands as to render the expectation of future revenue from thatsource, beyond the expenses of survey and management, illusory. TheSecretary of the Interior estimated the revenue from the public landsfor the next fiscal year at $4,000,000, on the presumption that thepresent land system would remain unchanged. Should this bill becomea law, he does not believe that $1,000,000 will be derived from thissource.

10. This bill lays the ax at the root of our present admirable landsystem. The public land is an inheritance of vast value to us and toour descendants. It is a resource to which we can resort in the hour ofdifficulty and danger. It has been managed heretofore with the greatestwisdom under existing laws. In this management the rights of actualsettlers have been conciliated with the interests of the Government. Theprice to all has been reduced from $2 per acre to $1.25 for fresh lands,and the claims of actual settlers have been secured by our preemptionlaws. Any man can now acquire a title in fee simple to a homestead of80 acres, at the minimum price of $1.25 per acre, for $100. Should thepresent system remain, we shall derive a revenue from the public landsof $10,000,000 per annum, when the bounty-land warrants are satisfied,without oppression to any human being. In time of war, when all othersources of revenue are seriously impaired, this will remain intact.It may become the best security for public loans hereafter, in timesof difficulty and danger, as it has been heretofore. Why should weimpair or destroy the system at the present moment? What necessityexists for it?

The people of the United States have advanced with steady but rapidstrides to their present condition of power and prosperity. They havebeen guided in their progress by the fixed principle of protecting theequal rights of all, whether they be rich or poor. No agrarian sentimenthas ever prevailed among them. The honest poor man, by frugality andindustry, can in any part of our country acquire a competence forhimself and his family, and in doing this he feels that he eats thebread of independence. He desires no charity, either from the Governmentor from his neighbors. This bill, which proposes to give him land at analmost nominal price out of the property of the Government, will go farto demoralize the people and repress this noble spirit of independence.It may introduce among us those pernicious social theories which haveproved so disastrous in other countries.

JAMES BUCHANAN.

PROTESTS.

WASHINGTON, _March 28, 1860_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

After a delay which has afforded me ample time for reflection, and aftermuch and careful deliberation, I find myself constrained by an imperioussense of duty, as a coordinate branch of the Federal Government, toprotest against the first two clauses of the first resolution adoptedby the House of Representatives on the 5th instant, and published in theCongressional Globe on the succeeding day. These clauses are in thefollowing words:

_Resolved_, That a committee of five members be appointed by the Speaker for the purpose, first, of investigating whether the President of the United States or any other officer of the Government has, by money, patronage, or other improper means, sought to influence the action of Congress or any committee thereof for or against the passage of any law appertaining to the rights of any State or Territory; and, second, also to inquire into and investigate whether any officer or officers of the Government have, by combination or otherwise, prevented or defeated, or attempted to prevent or defeat, the execution of any law or laws now upon the statute book, and whether the President has failed or refused to compel the execution of any law thereof.

I confine myself exclusively to these two branches of the resolution,because the portions of it which follow relate to alleged abuses inpost-offices, navy-yards, public buildings, and other public worksof the United States. In such cases inquiries are highly proper inthemselves and belong equally to the Senate and the House, as incidentto their legislative duties and being necessary to enable them todiscover and to provide the appropriate legislative remedies for anyabuses which may be ascertained. Although the terms of the latterportion of the resolution are extremely vague and general, yet my solepurpose in adverting to them at present is to mark the broad line ofdistinction between the accusatory and the remedial clauses of thisresolution. The House of Representatives possess no power under theConstitution over the first or accusatory portion of the resolutionexcept as an impeaching body, whilst over the last, in common with theSenate, their authority as a legislative body is fully and cheerfullyadmitted.

It is solely in reference to the first or impeaching power that Ipropose to make a few observations. Except in this single case, theConstitution has invested the House of Representatives with no power,no jurisdiction, no supremacy whatever over the President. In all otherrespects he is quite as independent of them as they are of him. As acoordinate branch of the Government he is their equal. Indeed, he is theonly direct representative on earth of the people of all and each of thesovereign States. To them, and to them alone, is he responsible whilstacting within the sphere of his constitutional duty, and not in anymanner to the House of Representatives. The people have thought properto invest him with the most honorable, responsible, and dignified officein the world, and the individual, however unworthy, now holding thisexalted position, will take care, so far as in him lies, that theirrights and prerogatives shall never be violated in his person, butshall pass to his successors unimpaired by the adoption of a dangerousprecedent. He will defend them to the last extremity against anyunconstitutional attempt, come from what quarter it may, to abridgethe constitutional rights of the Executive and render him subservientto any human power except themselves.

The people have not confined the President to the exercise of executiveduties. They have also conferred upon him a large measure of legislativediscretion. No bill can become a law without his approval, asrepresenting the people of the United States, unless it shall pass afterhis veto by a majority of two-thirds of both Houses. In his legislativecapacity he might, in common with the Senate and the House, institute aninquiry to ascertain any facts which ought to influence his judgment inapproving or vetoing any bill.

This participation in the performance of legislative duties between thecoordinate branches of the Government ought to inspire the conduct ofall of them in their relations toward each other with mutual forbearanceand respect. At least each has a right to demand justice from the other.The cause of complaint is that the constitutional rights and immunitiesof the Executive have been violated in the person of the President.

The trial of an impeachment of the President before the Senateon charges preferred and prosecuted against him by the House ofRepresentatives would be an imposing spectacle for the world. Inthe result not only his removal from the Presidential office would beinvolved, but, what is of infinitely greater importance to himself, hischaracter, both in the eyes of the present and of future generations,might possibly be tarnished. The disgrace cast upon him would in somedegree be reflected upon the character of the American people, whoelected him. Hence the precautions adopted by the Constitution tosecure a fair trial. On such a trial it declares that "the ChiefJustice shall preside." This was doubtless because the framers ofthe Constitution believed it to be possible that the Vice-Presidentmight be biased by the fact that "in case of the removal of thePresident from office ... the same shall devolve on the Vice-President."

The preliminary proceedings in the House in the case of charges whichmay involve impeachment have been well and wisely settled by longpractice upon principles of equal justice both to the accused and tothe people. The precedent established in the case of Judge Peck, ofMissouri, in 1831, after a careful review of all former precedents,will, I venture to predict, stand the test of time.

In that case Luke Edward Lawless, the accuser, presented a petition tothe House, in which he set forth minutely and specifically his causes ofcomplaint. He prayed "that the conduct and proceedings in this behalf ofsaid Judge Peck may be inquired into by your honorable body, and suchdecision made thereon as to your wisdom and justice shall seem proper."This petition was referred to the Judiciary Committee; such has everbeen deemed the appropriate committee to make similar investigations.It is a standing committee, supposed to be appointed without referenceto any special case, and at all times is presumed to be composed ofthe most eminent lawyers in the House from different portions of theUnion, whose acquaintance with judicial proceedings and whose habits ofinvestigation qualify them peculiarly for the task. No tribunal, fromtheir position and character, could in the nature of things be moreimpartial. In the case of Judge Peck the witnesses were selected by thecommittee itself, with a view to ascertain the truth of the charge.They were cross-examined by him, and everything was conducted in sucha manner as to afford him no reasonable cause of complaint. In view ofthis precedent, and, what is of far greater importance, in view of theConstitution and the principles of eternal justice, in what mannerhas the President of the United States been treated by the House ofRepresentatives? Mr. John Covode, a Representative from Pennsylvania, isthe accuser of the President. Instead of following the wise precedentsof former times, and especially that in the case of Judge Peck, andreferring the accusation to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Househave made my accuser one of my judges.

To make the accuser the judge is a violation of the principles ofuniversal justice, and is condemned by the practice of all civilizednations. Every freeman must revolt at such a spectacle. I am toappear before Mr. Covode, either personally or by a substitute, tocross-examine the witnesses which he may produce before himself tosustain his own accusations against me; and perhaps even this poorboon may be denied to the President.

And what is the nature of the investigation which his resolutionproposes to institute? It is as vague and general as the Englishlanguage affords words in which to make it. The committee is to inquire,not into any specific charge or charges, but whether the President has,by "money, patronage, or other improper means, sought to influence,"not the action of any individual member or members of Congress, but"the action" of the entire body "of Congress" itself "or any committeethereof." The President might have had some glimmering of the nature ofthe offense to be investigated had his accuser pointed to the act oracts of Congress which he sought to pass or to defeat by the employmentof "money, patronage, or other improper means." But the accusationis bounded by no such limits. It extends to the whole circle oflegislation--to interference "for or against the passage of any lawappertaining to the rights of any State or Territory." And what law doesnot appertain to the rights of some State or Territory? And what law orlaws has the President failed to execute? These might easily have beenpointed out had any such existed.

Had Mr. Lawless asked an inquiry to be made by the House whether JudgePeck, in general terms, had not violated his judicial duties, withoutthe specification of any particular act, I do not believe there wouldhave been a single vote in that body in favor of the inquiry.

Since the time of the star-chamber and of general warrants there hasbeen no such proceeding in England.

The House of Representatives, the high impeaching power of the country,without consenting to hear a word of explanation, have indorsed thisaccusation against the President and made it their own act. They evenrefused to permit a Member to inquire of the President's accuser whatwere the specific charges against him. Thus, in this preliminaryaccusation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" against a coordinate branchof the Government, under the impeaching power, the House refused to heara single suggestion, even in regard to the correct mode of proceeding,but without a moment's delay passed the accusatory resolutions underthe pressure of the previous question.

In the institution of a prosecution for any offense against the mosthumble citizen--and I claim for myself no greater rights than heenjoys--the constitutions of the United States and of the several Statesrequire that he shall be informed in the very beginning of the natureand cause of the accusation against him, in order to enable him toprepare for his defense. There are other principles which I mightenumerate, not less sacred, presenting an impenetrable shield to protectevery citizen falsely charged with a criminal offense. These have beenviolated in the prosecution instituted by the House of Representativesagainst the executive branch of the Government. Shall the Presidentalone be deprived of the protection of these great principles whichprevail in every land where a ray of liberty penetrates the gloom ofdespotism? Shall the Executive alone be deprived of rights which allhis fellow-citizens enjoy? The whole proceeding against him justifiesthe fears of those wise and great men who, before the Constitution wasadopted by the States, apprehended that the tendency of the Governmentwas to the aggrandizement of the legislative at the expense of theexecutive and judicial departments.

I again declare emphatically that I make this protest for no reasonpersonal to myself, and I do it with perfect respect for the House ofRepresentatives, in which I had the honor of serving as a member forfive successive terms. I have lived long in this goodly land, and haveenjoyed all the offices and honors which my country could bestow. Amidall the political storms through which I have passed, the present is thefirst attempt which has ever been made, to my knowledge, to assail mypersonal or official integrity; and this as the time is approachingwhen I shall voluntarily retire from the service of my country. I feelproudly conscious that there is no public act of my life which will notbear the strictest scrutiny. I defy all investigation. Nothing but thebasest perjury can sully my good name. I do not fear even this, becauseI cherish an humble confidence that the gracious Being who has hithertodefended and protected me against the shafts of falsehood and malicewill not desert me now when I have become "old and gray headed." I candeclare before God and my country that no human being (with an exceptionscarcely worthy of notice) has at any period of my life dared toapproach me with a corrupt or dishonorable proposition, and until recentdevelopments it had never entered into my imagination that any person,even in the storm of exasperated political excitement, would charge mein the most remote degree with having made such a proposition to anyhuman being. I may now, however, exclaim in the language of complaintemployed by my first and greatest predecessor, that I have been abused"in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be appliedto a Nero, to a notorious defaulter, or even to a common pickpocket."

I do therefore, for the reasons stated and in the name of the people ofthe several States, solemnly protest against these proceedings of theHouse of Representatives, because they are in violation of the rights ofthe coordinate executive branch of the Government and subversive of itsconstitutional independence; because they are calculated to foster aband of interested parasites and informers, ever ready, for their ownadvantage, to swear before _ex parte_ committees to pretended privateconversations between the President and themselves, incapable from theirnature of being disproved, thus furnishing material for harassing him,degrading him in the eyes of the country, and eventually, should he be aweak or a timid man, rendering him subservient to improper influences inorder to avoid such persecutions and annoyances; because they tend todestroy that harmonious action for the common good which ought to bemaintained, and which I sincerely desire to cherish, between coordinatebranches of the Government; and, finally, because, if unresisted, theywould establish a precedent dangerous and embarrassing to all mysuccessors, to whatever political party they might be attached.

JAMES BUCHANAN.

WASHINGTON, _June 22, 1860_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In my message to the House of Representatives of the 28th March last Isolemnly protested against the creation of a committee, at the head ofwhich was placed my accuser, for the purpose of investigating whetherthe President had, "by money, patronage, or other improper means, soughtto influence the action of Congress or any committee thereof for oragainst the passage of any law appertaining to the rights of any Stateor Territory," I protested against this because it was destitute of anyspecification; because it referred to no particular act to enable thePresident to prepare for his defense; because it deprived him of theconstitutional guards which, in common with every citizen of the UnitedStates, he possesses for his protection, and because it assailed hisconstitutional independence as a coordinate branch of the Government.

There is an enlightened justice, as well as a beautiful symmetry, inevery part of the Constitution. This is conspicuously manifested inregard to impeachments. The House of Representatives possesses "thesole power of impeachment," the Senate "the sole power to try allimpeachments;" and the impeachable offenses are "treason, bribery, orother high crimes or misdemeanors." The practice of the House from theearliest times had been in accordance with its own dignity, the rightsof the accused, and the demands of justice. At the commencement of eachjudicial investigation which might lead to an impeachment specificcharges were always preferred; the accused had an opportunity ofcross-examining the witnesses, and he was placed in full possession ofthe precise nature of the offense which he had to meet. An impartial andelevated standing committee was charged with this investigation, uponwhich no member inspired with the ancient sense of honor and justicewould have served had he ever expressed an opinion against the accused.Until the present occasion it was never deemed proper to transform theaccuser into the judge and to confer upon him the selection of his owncommittee.

The charges made against me in vague and general terms were of sucha false and atrocious character that I did not entertain a moment'sapprehension for the result. They were abhorrent to every principleinstilled into me from my youth and every practice of my life, and Idid not believe it possible that the man existed who would so baselyperjure himself as to swear to the truth of any such accusations. Inthis conviction I am informed I have not been mistaken.

In my former protest, therefore, I truly and emphatically declaredthat it was made for no reason personal to myself, but because theproceedings of the House were in violation of the rights of thecoordinate executive branch of the Government, subversive of itsconstitutional independence, and if unresisted would establisha precedent dangerous and embarrassing to all my successors.Notwithstanding all this, if the committee had not transcendedthe authority conferred upon it by the resolution of the House ofRepresentatives, broad and general as this was, I should have remainedsilent upon the subject. What I now charge is that they have acted asthough they possessed unlimited power, and, without any warrant whateverin the resolution under which they were appointed, have pursued a coursenot merely at war with the constitutional rights of the Executive, buttending to degrade the Presidential office itself to such a degree as torender it unworthy of the acceptance of any man of honor or principle.

The resolution of the House, so far as it is accusatory of thePresident, is confined to an inquiry whether he had used corrupt orimproper means to influence the action of Congress or any of itscommittees on legislative measures pending before them--nothing more,nothing less. I have not learned through the newspapers or in any othermode that the committee have touched the other accusatory branch of theresolution, charging the President with a violation of duty in failingto execute some law or laws. This branch of the resolution is thereforeout of the question. By what authority, then, have the committeeundertaken to investigate the course of the President in regard to theconvention which framed the Lecompton constitution? By what authorityhave they undertaken to pry into our foreign relations for the purposeof assailing him on account of the instructions given by the Secretaryof State to our minister in Mexico relative to the Tehuantepec route?By what authority have they inquired into the causes of removal fromoffice, and this from the parties themselves removed, with a view toprejudice his character, notwithstanding this power of removal belongsexclusively to the President under the Constitution, was so decided bythe First Congress in the year 1789, and has accordingly ever since beenexercised? There is in the resolution no pretext of authority for thecommittee to investigate the question of the printing of the post-officeblanks; nor is it to be supposed that the House, if asked, would havegranted such an authority, because this question had been previouslycommitted to two other committees--one in the Senate and the other inthe House. Notwithstanding this absolute want of power, the committeerushed into this investigation in advance of all other subjects.

The committee proceeded for months, from March 22, 1860, to examine _exparte_ and without any notice to myself into every subject which couldpossibly affect my character. Interested and vindictive witnesses weresummoned and examined before them; and the first and only information oftheir testimony which, in almost every instance, I received was obtainedfrom the publication of such portions of it as could injuriously affectmyself in the New York journals. It mattered not that these statementswere, so far as I have learned, disproved by the most respectablewitnesses who happened to be on the spot. The telegraph was silentrespecting these contradictions. It was a secret committee in regardto the testimony in my defense, but it was public in regard to all thetestimony which could by possibility reflect on my character. The poisonwas left to produce its effect upon the public mind, whilst the antidotewas carefully withheld.

In their examinations the committee violated the most sacred andhonorable confidences existing among men. Private correspondence,which a truly honorable man would never even entertain a distant thoughtof divulging, was dragged to light. Different persons in official andconfidential relations with myself, and with whom it was supposed Imight have held conversations the revelation of which would do meinjury, were examined. Even members of the Senate and members of my ownCabinet, both my constitutional advisers, were called upon to testify,for the purpose of discovering something, if possible, to my discredit.

The distribution of the patronage of the Government is by far the mostdisagreeable duty of the President. Applicants are so numerous and theirapplications are pressed with such eagerness by their friends, both inand out of Congress, that the selection of one for any desirable officegives offense to many. Disappointed applicants, removed officers, andthose who for any cause, real or imaginary, had become hostile to theAdministration presented themselves or were invited by a summons toappear before the committee. These are the most dangerous witnesses.Even with the best intentions they are so influenced by prejudice anddisappointment that they almost inevitably discolor truth. They swear totheir own version of private conversations with the President withoutthe possibility of contradiction. His lips are sealed, and he is leftat their mercy. He can not, as a coordinate branch of the Government,appear before a committee of investigation to contradict the oaths ofsuch witnesses. Every coward knows that he can employ insulting languageagainst the President with impunity, and every false or prejudicedwitness can attempt to swear away his character before such a committeewithout the fear of contradiction.

Thus for months, whilst doing my best at one end of the Avenue toperform my high and responsible duties to the country, has there been acommittee of the House of Representatives in session at the other end ofthe Avenue spreading a drag net, without the shadow of authority fromthe House, over the whole Union, to catch any disappointed man willingto malign my character; and all this in secret conclave. The lion'smouth at Venice, into which secret denunciations were dropped, is anapt illustration of the Covode committee. The star-chamber, tyrannicaland odious as it was, never proceeded in such a manner. For centuriesthere has been nothing like it in any civilized country, except therevolutionary tribunal of France in the days of Robespierre. Now Iundertake to state and to prove that should the proceedings of thecommittee be sanctioned by the House and become a precedent for futuretimes the balance of the Constitution will be entirely upset, and therewill no longer remain the three coordinate and independent branches ofthe Government--legislative, executive, and judicial. The worst fears ofthe patriots and statesmen who framed the Constitution in regard to theusurpations of the legislative on the executive and judicial brancheswill then be realized. In the language of Mr. Madison, speaking on thisvery subject in the forty-eighth number of the Federalist:

In a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited, both in the extent and duration of its power, and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength, which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions by means which reason prescribes, it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.

And in the expressive and pointed language of Mr. Jefferson, whenspeaking of the tendency of the legislative branch of Government tousurp the rights of the weaker branches:

The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the Republic of Venice. As little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and controlled by the others.

Should the proceedings of the Covode committee become a precedent, boththe letter and spirit of the Constitution will be violated. One of thethree massive columns on which the whole superstructure rests will bebroken down. Instead of the Executive being a coordinate it will becomea subordinate branch of the Government. The Presidential office willbe dragged into the dust. The House of Representatives will then haverendered the Executive almost necessarily subservient to its wishes,instead of being independent. How is it possible that two powers in theState can be coordinate and independent of each other if the one claimsand exercises the power to reprove and to censure all the official actsand all the private conversations of the other, and this upon _ex parte_testimony before a secret inquisitorial committee in short, to assume ageneral censorship over the other? The idea is as absurd in public asit would be in private life. Should the President attempt to assert andmaintain his own independence, future Covode committees may dragoon himinto submission by collecting the hosts of disappointed office hunters,removed officers, and those who desire to live upon the public Treasury,which must follow in the wake of every Administration, and they insecret conclave will swear away his reputation. Under such circumstanceshe must be a very bold man should he not surrender at discretion andconsent to exercise his authority according to the will of thoseinvested with this terrific power. The sovereign people of the severalStates have elected him to the highest and most honorable office inthe world. He is their only direct representative in the Government.By their Constitution they have made him Commander in Chief of theirArmy and Navy. He represents them in their intercourse with foreignnations. Clothed with their dignity and authority, he occupies a proudposition before all nations, civilized and savage. With the consent ofthe Senate, he appoints all the important officers of the Government.He exercises the veto power, and to that extent controls the legislationof Congress. For the performance of these high duties he is responsibleto the people of the several States, and not in any degree to the Houseof Representatives.

Shall he surrender these high powers, conferred upon him as therepresentative of the American people for their benefit, to the Houseto be exercised under their overshadowing influence and control? Shallhe alone of all the citizens of the United States be denied a fairtrial? Shall he alone not be "informed of the nature and cause of theaccusation" against him? Shall he alone not "be confronted with thewitnesses" against him? Shall the House of Representatives, usurping thepowers of the Senate, proceed to try the President through the agency ofa secret committee of the body, where it is impossible he can make anydefense, and then, without affording him an opportunity of being heard,pronounce a judgment of censure against him? The very same rule mightbe applied for the very same reason to every judge of every court ofthe United States. From what part of the Constitution is this terriblesecret inquisitorial power derived? No such express power exists.From which of the enumerated powers can it be inferred? It is true theHouse can not pronounce the formal judgment against him of "removalfrom office," but they can by their judgment of censure asperse hisreputation, and thus to the extent of their influence render the officecontemptible. An example is at hand of the reckless manner in which thispower of censure can be employed in high party times. The House on arecent occasion have attempted to degrade the President by adopting theresolution of Mr. John Sherman declaring that he, in conjunction withthe Secretary of the Navy, "by receiving and considering the partyrelations of bidders for contracts and the effect of awarding contractsupon pending elections, have set an example dangerous to the publicsafety and deserving the reproof of this House."

It will scarcely be credited that the sole pretext for this vote ofcensure was the simple fact that in disposing of the numerous lettersof every imaginable character which I daily receive I had in the usualcourse of business referred a letter from Colonel Patterson, ofPhiladelphia, in relation to a contract, to the attention of theSecretary of the Navy, the head of the appropriate Department, withoutexpressing or intimating any opinion whatever on the subject; and tomake the matter if possible still plainer, the Secretary had informedthe committee that "_the President did not in any manner interfere inthis case, nor has he in any other case of contract since I have beenin the Department_." The absence of all proof to sustain this attemptto degrade the President, whilst it manifests the venom of the shaftaimed at him, has destroyed the vigor of the bow.

To return after this digression: Should the House, by the institutionof Covode committees, votes of censure, and other devices to harass thePresident, reduce him to subservience to their will and render him theircreature, then the well-balanced Government which our fathers framedwill be annihilated. This conflict has already been commenced in earnestby the House against the Executive. A bad precedent rarely, if ever,dies. It will, I fear, be pursued in the time of my successors, nomatter what may be their political character. Should secret committeesbe appointed with unlimited authority to range over all the words andactions, and, if possible, the very thoughts, of the President with aview to discover something in his past life prejudicial to his characterfrom parasites and informers, this would be an ordeal which scarcely anymere man since the fall could endure. It would be to subject him to areign of terror from which the stoutest and purest heart might shrink.I have passed triumphantly through this ordeal. My vindication iscomplete. The committee have reported no resolution looking to animpeachment against me; no resolution of censure; not even a resolutionpointing out any abuses in any of the Executive Departments of theGovernment to be corrected by legislation. This is the highestcommendation which could be bestowed on the heads of these Departments.The sovereign people of the States will, however, I trust, save mysuccessors, whoever they may be, from any such ordeal. They are frank,bold, and honest. They detest delators and informers. I therefore, inthe name and as the representative of this great people, and standingupon the ramparts of the Constitution which they "have ordained andestablished," do solemnly protest against these unprecedented andunconstitutional proceedings.

There was still another committee raised by the House on the 6thMarch last, on motion of Mr. Hoard, to which I had not the slightestobjection. The resolution creating it was confined to specific charges,which I have ever since been ready and willing to meet. I have atall times invited and defied fair investigation upon constitutionalprinciples. I have received no notice that this committee have everproceeded to the investigation.

Why should the House of Representatives desire to encroach on the otherdepartments of the Government? Their rightful powers are ample for everylegitimate purpose. They are the impeaching body. In their legislativecapacity it is their most wise and wholesome prerogative to instituterigid examinations into the manner in which all departments of theGovernment are conducted, with a view to reform abuses, to promoteeconomy, and to improve every branch of administration. Should theyfind reason to believe in the course of their examinations that anygrave offense had been committed by the President or any officer ofthe Government rendering it proper, in their judgment, to resort toimpeachment, their course would be plain. They would then transfer thequestion from their legislative to their accusatory jurisdiction, andtake care that in all the preliminary judicial proceedings preparatoryto the vote of articles of impeachment the accused should enjoy thebenefit of cross-examining the witnesses and all the other safeguardswith which the Constitution surrounds every American citizen.

If in a legislative investigation it should appear that the publicinterest required the removal of any officer of the Government, noPresident has ever existed who, after giving him a fair hearing, wouldhesitate to apply the remedy.

This I take to be the ancient and well-established practice. Anadherence to it will best promote the harmony and the dignity of theintercourse between the coordinate branches of the Government and renderus all more respectable both in the eyes of our own countrymen and offoreign nations.

JAMES BUCHANAN.

PROCLAMATION.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas an extraordinary occasion has occurred rendering it necessaryand proper that the Senate of the United States shall be convened toreceive and act upon such communications as have been or may be madeto it on the part of the Executive:

Now, therefore, I, James Buchanan, President of the United States, doissue this my proclamation, declaring that an extraordinary occasionrequires the Senate of the United States to convene for the transactionof business at the Capitol, in the city of Washington, on the 26th dayof June instant, at 12 o'clock at noon of that day, of which all whoshall then be entitled to act as members of that body are herebyrequired to take notice.

[SEAL.]

Given under my hand and the seal of the United States, at Washington,this 25th day of June, A. D. 1860, and of the Independence of the UnitedStates the eighty-fourth.

JAMES BUCHANAN.

By the President: LEWIS CASS, _Secretary of State_.

FOURTH ANNUAL MESSAGE.

WASHINGTON CITY, _December 3, 1860_.

_Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives_:

Throughout the year since our last meeting the country has beeneminently prosperous in all its material interests. The general healthhas been excellent, our harvests have been abundant, and plenty smilesthroughout the land. Our commerce and manufactures have been prosecutedwith energy and industry, and have yielded fair and ample returns. Inshort, no nation in the tide of time has ever presented a spectacle ofgreater material prosperity than we have done until within a very recentperiod.

Why is it, then, that discontent now so extensively prevails, and theUnion of the States, which is the source of all these blessings, isthreatened with destruction?

The long-continued and intemperate interference of the Northern peoplewith the question of slavery in the Southern States has at lengthproduced its natural effects. The different sections of the Union arenow arrayed against each other, and the time has arrived, so muchdreaded by the Father of his Country, when hostile geographical partieshave been formed.

I have long foreseen and often forewarned my countrymen of the nowimpending danger. This does not proceed solely from the claim on thepart of Congress or the Territorial legislatures to exclude slavery fromthe Territories, nor from the efforts of different States to defeat theexecution of the fugitive-slave law. All or any of these evils mighthave been endured by the South without danger to the Union (as othershave been) in the hope that time and reflection might apply the remedy.The immediate peril arises not so much from these causes as from thefact that the incessant and violent agitation of the slavery questionthroughout the North for the last quarter of a century has at lengthproduced its malign influence on the slaves and inspired them with vaguenotions of freedom. Hence a sense of security no longer exists aroundthe family altar. This feeling of peace at home has given place toapprehensions of servile insurrections. Many a matron throughout theSouth retires at night in dread of what may befall herself and childrenbefore the morning. Should this apprehension of domestic danger, whetherreal or imaginary, extend and intensify itself until it shall pervadethe masses of the Southern people, then disunion will become inevitable.Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and has been implanted inthe heart of man by his Creator for the wisest purpose; and no politicalunion, however fraught with blessings and benefits in all otherrespects, can long continue if the necessary consequence be to renderthe homes and the firesides of nearly half the parties to it habituallyand hopelessly insecure. Sooner or later the bonds of such a union mustbe severed. It is my conviction that this fatal period has not yetarrived, and my prayer to God is that He would preserve the Constitutionand the Union throughout all generations.

But let us take warning in time and remove the cause of danger. It cannot be denied that for five and twenty years the agitation at the Northagainst slavery has been incessant. In 1835 pictorial handbills andinflammatory appeals were circulated extensively throughout the South ofa character to excite the passions of the slaves, and, in the languageof General Jackson, "to stimulate them to insurrection and produce allthe horrors of a servile war." This agitation has ever since beencontinued by the public press, by the proceedings of State and countyconventions and by abolition sermons and lectures. The time of Congresshas been occupied in violent speeches on this never-ending subject, andappeals, in pamphlet and other forms, indorsed by distinguished names,have been sent forth from this central point and spread broadcast overthe Union.

How easy would it be for the American people to settle the slaveryquestion forever and to restore peace and harmony to this distractedcountry! They, and they alone, can do it. All that is necessary toaccomplish the object, and all for which the slave States have evercontended, is to be let alone and permitted to manage their domesticinstitutions in their own way. As sovereign States, they, and theyalone, are responsible before God and the world for the slavery existingamong them. For this the people of the North are not more responsibleand have no more right to interfere than with similar institutions inRussia or in Brazil.

Upon their good sense and patriotic forbearance I confess I stillgreatly rely. Without their aid it is beyond the power of any President,no matter what may be his own political proclivities, to restore peaceand harmony among the States. Wisely limited and restrained as is hispower under our Constitution and laws, he alone can accomplish butlittle for good or for evil on such a momentous question.

And this brings me to observe that the election of any one of ourfellow-citizens to the office of President does not of itself affordjust cause for dissolving the Union. This is more especially true ifhis election has been effected by a mere plurality, and not a majorityof the people, and has resulted from transient and temporary causes,which may probably never again occur. In order to justify a resort torevolutionary resistance, the Federal Government must be guilty of "adeliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise" of powers not granted bythe Constitution. The late Presidential election, however, has been heldin strict conformity with its express provisions. How, then, can theresult justify a revolution to destroy this very Constitution? Reason,justice, a regard for the Constitution, all require that we shall waitfor some overt and dangerous act on the part of the President electbefore resorting to such a remedy. It is said, however, that theantecedents of the President elect have been sufficient to justify thefears of the South that he will attempt to invade their constitutionalrights. But are such apprehensions of contingent danger in the futuresufficient to justify the immediate destruction of the noblest system ofgovernment ever devised by mortals? From the very nature of his officeand its high responsibilities he must necessarily be conservative. Thestern duty of administering the vast and complicated concerns of thisGovernment affords in itself a guaranty that he will not attempt anyviolation of a clear constitutional right.

After all, he is no more than the chief executive officer of theGovernment. His province is not to make but to execute the laws.And it is a remarkable fact in our history that, notwithstandingthe repeated efforts of the antislavery party, no single act has everpassed Congress, unless we may possibly except the Missouri compromise,impairing in the slightest degree the rights of the South to theirproperty in slaves; and it may also be observed, judging from presentindications, that no probability exists of the passage of such an act bya majority of both Houses, either in the present or the next Congress.Surely under these circumstances we ought to be restrained from presentaction by the precept of Him who spake as man never spoke, that"sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof," The day of evil may nevercome unless we shall rashly bring it upon ourselves.

It is alleged as one cause for immediate secession that the SouthernStates are denied equal rights with the other States in the commonTerritories. But by what authority are these denied? Not by Congress,which has never passed, and I believe never will pass, any act toexclude slavery from these Territories; and certainly not by the SupremeCourt, which has solemnly decided that slaves are property, and, likeall other property, their owners have a right to take them into thecommon Territories and hold them there under the protection of theConstitution.

So far then, as Congress is concerned, the objection is not to anythingthey have already done, but to what they may do hereafter. It willsurely be admitted that this apprehension of future danger is no goodreason for an immediate dissolution of the Union. It is true that theTerritorial legislature of Kansas, on the 23d February, 1860, passed ingreat haste an act over the veto of the governor declaring that slavery"is and shall be forever prohibited in this Territory." Such an act,however, plainly violating the rights of property secured by theConstitution, will surely be declared void by the judiciary wheneverit shall be presented in a legal form.

Only three days after my inauguration the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates solemnly adjudged that this power did not exist in a Territoriallegislature. Yet such has been the factious temper of the times that thecorrectness of this decision has been extensively impugned before thepeople, and the question has given rise to angry political conflictsthroughout the country. Those who have appealed from this judgment ofour highest constitutional tribunal to popular assemblies would, if theycould, invest a Territorial legislature with power to annul the sacredrights of property. This power Congress is expressly forbidden by theFederal Constitution to exercise. Every State legislature in the Unionis forbidden by its own constitution to exercise it. It can not beexercised in any State except by the people in their highest sovereigncapacity, when framing or amending their State constitution. In likemanner it can only be exercised by the people of a Territory representedin a convention of delegates for the purpose of framing a constitutionpreparatory to admission as a State into the Union. Then, and not untilthen, are they invested with power to decide the question whetherslavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. This is an act ofsovereign authority, and not of subordinate Territorial legislation.Were it otherwise, then indeed would the equality of the States in theTerritories be destroyed, and the rights of property in slaves woulddepend not upon the guaranties of the Constitution, but upon theshifting majorities of an irresponsible Territorial legislature. Sucha doctrine, from its intrinsic unsoundness, can not long influence anyconsiderable portion of our people, much less can it afford a goodreason for a dissolution of the Union.

The most palpable violations of constitutional duty which have yet beencommitted consist in the acts of different State legislatures to defeatthe execution of the fugitive-slave law. It ought to be remembered,however, that for these acts neither Congress nor any President canjustly be held responsible. Having been passed in violation of theFederal Constitution, they are therefore null and void. All the courts,both State and national, before whom the question has arisen have fromthe beginning declared the fugitive-slave law to be constitutional. Thesingle exception is that of a State court in Wisconsin, and this has notonly been reversed by the proper appellate tribunal, but has met withsuch universal reprobation that there can be no danger from it as aprecedent. The validity of this law has been established over and overagain by the Supreme Court of the United States with perfect unanimity.It is founded upon an express provision of the Constitution, requiringthat fugitive slaves who escape from service in one State to anothershall be "delivered up" to their masters. Without this provision it is awell-known historical fact that the Constitution itself could never havebeen adopted by the Convention. In one form or other, under the acts of1793 and 1850, both being substantially the same, the fugitive-slavelaw has been the law of the land from the days of Washington until thepresent moment. Here, then, a clear case is presented in which it willbe the duty of the next President, as it has been my own, to act withvigor in executing this supreme law against the conflicting enactmentsof State legislatures. Should he fail in the performance of this highduty, he will then have manifested a disregard of the Constitution andlaws, to the great injury of the people of nearly one-half of the Statesof the Union. But are we to presume in advance that he will thus violatehis duty? This would be at war with every principle of justice and ofChristian charity. Let us wait for the overt act. The fugitive-slavelaw has been carried into execution in every contested case since thecommencement of the present Administration, though often, it is tobe regretted, with great loss and inconvenience to the master andwith considerable expense to the Government. Let us trust that theState legislatures will repeal their unconstitutional and obnoxiousenactments. Unless this shall be done without unnecessary delay, itis impossible for any human power to save the Union.

The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have aright to demand this act of justice from the States of the North. Shouldit be refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States areparties, will have been willfully violated by one portion of them ina provision essential to the domestic security and happiness of theremainder. In that event the injured States, after having first used allpeaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justifiedin revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union.

I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance,because it has been claimed within the last few years that any State,whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede fromthe Union in accordance with the Constitution and without any violationof the constitutional rights of the other members of the Confederacy;that as each became parties to the Union by the vote of its own peopleassembled in convention, so any one of them may retire from the Unionin a similar manner by the vote of such a convention.

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it mustbe on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntaryassociation of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of thecontracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand,to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of publicopinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three Statesmay, resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostilerepublics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibilitywhenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course.By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments ina few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation,and blood to establish.

Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as thecharacter of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed with thegreatest deliberation and care it was submitted to conventions of thepeople of the several States for ratification. Its provisions werediscussed at length in these bodies, composed of the first men of thecountry. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon theFederal Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst itsadvocates maintained that under a fair construction of the instrumentthere was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty strugglebetween the first intellects of this or any other country it neveroccurred to any individual, either among its opponents or advocates,to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all vain labor,because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved she mightsecede from the Union. What a crushing argument would this have provedagainst those who dreaded that the rights of the States would beendangered by the Constitution! The truth is that it was not until manyyears after the origin of the Federal Government that such a propositionwas first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the conclusivearguments of General Jackson, who in his message of the 16th of January,1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina toCongress, employs the following language:

The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain.

It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution givescountenance to such a theory. It is altogether founded upon inference;not from any language contained in the instrument itself, but from thesovereign character of the several States by which it was ratified.But is it beyond the power of a State, like an individual, to yield aportion of its sovereign rights to secure the remainder? In the languageof Mr. Madison, who has been called the father of the Constitution--

It was formed by the States; that is, by the people in each of the States acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and formed, consequently, by the same authority which formed the State constitutions. ... Nor is the Government of the United States, created by the Constitution, less a government, in the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its powers than the governments created by the constitutions of the States are within their several spheres. It is, like them, organized into legislative, executive, and judiciary departments. It operates, like them, directly on persons and things, and, like them, it has at command a physical force for executing the powers committed to it.

It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the pleasureof any one of the contracting parties. The old Articles of Confederationwere entitled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between theStates," and by the thirteenth article it is expressly declared that"the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed byevery State, and the Union shall be perpetual." The preamble to theConstitution of the United States, having express reference to theArticles of Confederation, recites that it was established "in orderto form a more perfect union." And yet it is contended that this "moreperfect union" does not include the essential attribute of perpetuity.

But that the Union was designed to be perpetual appears conclusivelyfrom the nature and extent of the powers conferred by the Constitutionon the Federal Government. These powers embrace the very highestattributes of national sovereignty. They place both the sword and thepurse under its control. Congress has power to make war and to makepeace, to raise and support armies and navies, and to conclude treatieswith foreign governments. It is invested with the power to coin moneyand to regulate the value thereof, and to regulate commerce with foreignnations and among the several States. It is not necessary to enumeratethe other high powers which have been conferred upon the FederalGovernment. In order to carry the enumerated powers into effect,Congress possesses the exclusive right to lay and collect duties onimports, and, in common with the States, to lay and collect all othertaxes.

But the Constitution has not only conferred these high powers uponCongress, but it has adopted effectual means to restrain the Statesfrom interfering with their exercise. For that purpose it has instrong prohibitory language expressly declared that--

No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, _ex post facto_ law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.

Moreover--

No State shall without the consent of the Congress lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws.

And if they exceed this amount the excess shall belong to the UnitedStates. And--

No State shall without the consent of Congress lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

In order still further to secure the uninterrupted exercise of thesehigh powers against State interposition, it is provided: that--

This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The solemn sanction of religion has been superadded to the obligationsof official duty, and all Senators and Representatives of the UnitedStates, all members of State legislatures, and all executive andjudicial officers, "both of the United States and of the several States,shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."

In order to carry into effect these powers, the Constitution hasestablished a perfect Government in all its forms--legislative,executive, and judicial; and this Government to the extent of its powersacts directly upon the individual citizens of every State, and executesits own decrees by the agency of its own officers. In this respect itdiffers entirely from the Government under the old Confederation, whichwas confined to making requisitions on the States in their sovereigncharacter. This left it in the discretion of each whether to obey orto refuse, and they often declined to comply with such requisitions.It thus became necessary for the purpose of removing this barrier and"in order to form a more perfect union" to establish a Government whichcould act directly upon the people and execute its own laws without theintermediate agency of the States. This has been accomplished by theConstitution of the United States. In short, the Government created bythe Constitution, and deriving its authority from the sovereign peopleof each of the several States, has precisely the same right to exerciseits power over the people of all these States in the enumerated casesthat each one of them possesses over subjects not delegated to theUnited States, but "reserved to the States respectively or to thepeople."

To the extent of the delegated powers the Constitution of the UnitedStates is as much a part of the constitution of each State and is asbinding upon its people as though it had been textually insertedtherein.

This Government, therefore, is a great and powerful Government, investedwith all the attributes of sovereignty over the special subjects towhich its authority extends. Its framers never intended to implantin its bosom the seeds of its own destruction, nor were they at itscreation guilty of the absurdity of providing for its own dissolution.It was not intended by its framers to be the baseless fabric of avision, which at the touch of the enchanter would vanish into thin air,but a substantial and mighty fabric, capable of resisting the slow decayof time and of defying the storms of ages. Indeed, well may the jealouspatriots of that day have indulged fears that a Government of such highpowers might violate the reserved rights of the States, and wisely didthey adopt the rule of a strict construction of these powers to preventthe danger. But they did not fear, nor had they any reason to imagine,that the Constitution would ever be so interpreted as to enable anyState by her own act, and without the consent of her sister States,to discharge her people from all or any of their federal obligations.

It may be asked, then, Are the people of the States without redressagainst the tyranny and oppression of the Federal Government? By nomeans. The right of resistance on the part of the governed againstthe oppression of their governments can not be denied. It existsindependently of all constitutions, and has been exercised at allperiods of the world's history. Under it old governments have beendestroyed and new ones have taken their place. It is embodied in strongand express language in our own Declaration of Independence. But thedistinction must ever be observed that this is revolution against anestablished government, and not a voluntary secession from it by virtueof an inherent constitutional right. In short, let us look the dangerfairly in the face. Secession is neither more nor less than revolution.It may or it may not be a justifiable revolution, but still it isrevolution.

What, in the meantime, is the responsibility and true position of theExecutive? He is bound by solemn oath, before God and the country,"to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and from thisobligation he can not be absolved by any human power. But what ifthe performance of this duty, in whole or in part, has been renderedimpracticable by events over which he could have exercised no control?Such at the present moment is the case throughout the State of SouthCarolina so far as the laws of the United States to secure theadministration of justice by means of the Federal judiciary areconcerned. All the Federal officers within its limits through whoseagency alone these laws can be carried into execution have alreadyresigned. We no longer have a district judge, a district attorney,or a marshal in South Carolina. In fact, the whole machinery of theFederal Government necessary for the distribution of remedial justiceamong the people has been demolished, and it would be difficult, if notimpossible, to replace it.

The only acts of Congress on the statute book bearing upon this subjectare those of February 28, 1795, and March 3, 1807. These authorize thePresident, after he shall have ascertained that the marshal, with his_posse comitatus_, is unable to execute civil or criminal process inany particular case, to call forth the militia and employ the Armyand Navy to aid him in performing this service, having first byproclamation commanded the insurgents "to disperse and retire peaceablyto their respective abodes within a limited time." This duty can not bypossibility be performed in a State where no judicial authority existsto issue process, and where there is no marshal to execute it, andwhere, even if there were such an officer, the entire population wouldconstitute one solid combination to resist him.

The bare enumeration of these provisions proves how inadequate they arewithout further legislation to overcome a united opposition in a singleState, not to speak of other States who may place themselves in asimilar attitude. Congress alone has power to decide whether the presentlaws can or can not be amended so as to carry out more effectually theobjects of the Constitution.

The same insuperable obstacles do not lie in the way of executing thelaws for the collection of the customs. The revenue still continues tobe collected as heretofore at the custom-house in Charleston, and shouldthe collector unfortunately resign a successor may be appointed toperform this duty.

Then, in regard to the property of the United States in South Carolina.This has been purchased for a fair equivalent, "by the consent of thelegislature of the State," "for the erection of forts, magazines,arsenals," etc., and over these the authority "to exercise exclusivelegislation" has been expressly granted by the Constitution to Congress.It is not believed that any attempt will be made to expel the UnitedStates from this property by force; but if in this I should prove to bemistaken, the officer in command of the forts has received orders to actstrictly on the defensive. In such a contingency the responsibility forconsequences would rightfully rest upon the heads of the assailants.

Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable,the Executive has no authority to decide what shall be the relationsbetween the Federal Government and South Carolina. He has been investedwith no such discretion. He possesses no power to change the relationsheretofore existing between them, much less to acknowledge theindependence of that State. This would be to invest a mere executiveofficer with the power of recognizing the dissolution of the confederacyamong our thirty-three sovereign States. It bears no resemblance to therecognition of a foreign _de facto_ government, involving no suchresponsibility. Any attempt to do this would, on his part, be a nakedact of usurpation. It is therefore my duty to submit to Congress thewhole question in all its bearings. The course of events is so rapidlyhastening forward that the emergency may soon arise when you may becalled upon to decide the momentous question whether you possess thepower by force of arms to compel a State to remain in the Union.I should feel myself recreant to my duty were I not to express anopinion on this important subject.

The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated toCongress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attemptingto withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answeredin the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has beenconferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State.After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that nosuch power has been delegated to Congress or to any other departmentof the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of theConstitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powersgranted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise isnot "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" any one of thesepowers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it wasexpressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution. Itappears from the proceedings of that body that on the 31st May, 1787,the clause "_authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole againsta delinquent State_" came up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed itin a brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a singlesentence. He observed:

The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.

Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed, and was never,I believe, again presented. Soon afterwards, on the 8th June, 1787,when incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: "Any governmentfor the United States formed on the supposed practicability of usingforce against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States wouldprove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress,"evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the old Confederation.

Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that thepower to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spiritand intent of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in theconquest of a State; how are we to govern it afterwards? Shall we holdit as a province and govern it by despotic power? In the nature ofthings, we could not by physical force control the will of the peopleand compel them to elect Senators and Representatives to Congress andto perform all the other duties depending upon their own volition andrequired from the free citizens of a free State as a constituent memberof the Confederacy.

But if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it underexisting circumstances? The object would doubtless be to preserve theUnion. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroyingit, but would vanish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides,in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and treasure would beexpended, rendering future reconciliation between the States impossible.In the meantime, who can foretell what would be the sufferings andprivations of the people during its existence?

The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never becemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can notlive in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congresspossesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword wasnot placed in their hand to preserve it by force.

But may I be permitted solemnly to invoke my countrymen to pause anddeliberate before they determine to destroy this the grandest templewhich has ever been dedicated to human freedom since the world began?It has been consecrated by the blood of our fathers, by the glories ofthe past, and by the hopes of the future. The Union has already made usthe most prosperous, and ere long will, if preserved, render us the mostpowerful, nation on the face of the earth. In every foreign region ofthe globe the title of American citizen is held in the highest respect,and when pronounced in a foreign land it causes the hearts of ourcountrymen to swell with honest pride. Surely when we reach the brinkof the yawning abyss we shall recoil with horror from the last fatalplunge.

By such a dread catastrophe the hopes of the friends of freedomthroughout the world would be destroyed, and a long night of leadendespotism would enshroud the nations. Our example for more than eightyyears would not only be lost, but it would be quoted as a conclusiveproof that man is unfit for self-government.

It is not every wrong--nay, it is not every grievous wrong--whichcan justify a resort to such a fearful alternative. This ought to bethe last desperate remedy of a despairing people, after every otherconstitutional means of conciliation had been exhausted. We shouldreflect that under this free Government there is an incessant ebb andflow in public opinion. The slavery question, like everything human,will have its day. I firmly believe that it has reached and passed theculminating point. But if in the midst of the existing excitement theUnion shall perish, the evil may then become irreparable.

Congress can contribute much to avert it by proposing and recommendingto the legislatures of the several States the remedy for existing evilswhich the Constitution has itself provided for its own preservation.This has been tried at different critical periods of our history, andalways with eminent success. It is to be found in the fifth article,providing for its own amendment. Under this article amendments havebeen proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and have been"ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States,"and have consequently become parts of the Constitution. To this processthe country is indebted for the clause prohibiting Congress from passingany law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the freedomof speech or of the press or of the right of petition. To this weare also indebted for the bill of rights which secures the peopleagainst any abuse of power by the Federal Government. Such were theapprehensions justly entertained by the friends of State rights atthat period as to have rendered it extremely doubtful whether theConstitution could have long survived without those amendments.

Again the Constitution was amended by the same process, after theelection of President Jefferson by the House of Representatives, inFebruary, 1803. This amendment was rendered necessary to prevent arecurrence of the dangers which had seriously threatened the existenceof the Government during the pendency of that election. The articlefor its own amendment was intended to secure the amicable adjustmentof conflicting constitutional questions like the present which mightarise between the governments of the States and that of the UnitedStates. This appears from contemporaneous history. In this connectionI shall merely call attention to a few sentences in Mr. Madison'sjustly celebrated report, in 1799, to the legislature of Virginia.In this he ably and conclusively defended the resolutions of thepreceding legislature against the strictures of several other Statelegislatures. These were mainly founded upon the protest of the Virginialegislature against the "alien and sedition acts," as "palpable andalarming infractions of the Constitution." In pointing out the peacefuland constitutional remedies--and he referred to none other--to which theStates were authorized to resort on such occasions, he concludes bysaying that--

The legislatures of the States might have made a direct representation to Congress with a view to obtain a rescinding of the two offensive acts, or they might have represented to their respective Senators in Congress their wish that two-thirds thereof would propose an explanatory amendment to the Constitution; or two-thirds of themselves, if such had been their option, might by an application to Congress have obtained a convention for the same object.

This is the very course which I earnestly recommend in order toobtain an "explanatory amendment" of the Constitution on the subject ofslavery. This might originate with Congress or the State legislatures,as may be deemed most advisable to attain the object. The explanatoryamendment might be confined to the final settlement of the trueconstruction of the Constitution on three special points:

1. An express recognition of the right of property in slaves in theStates where it now exists or may hereafter exist.

2. The duty of protecting this right in all the common Territoriesthroughout their Territorial existence, and until they shall beadmitted as States into the Union, with or without slavery, as theirconstitutions may prescribe.

3. A like recognition of the right of the master to have his slave whohas escaped from one State to another restored and "delivered up" tohim, and of the validity of the fugitive-slave law enacted for thispurpose, together with a declaration that all State laws impairingor defeating this right are violations of the Constitution, and areconsequently null and void. It may be objected that this construction ofthe Constitution has already been settled by the Supreme Court of theUnited States, and what more ought to be required? The answer is that avery large proportion of the people of the United States still contestthe correctness of this decision, and never will cease from agitationand admit its binding force until clearly established by the people ofthe several States in their sovereign character. Such an explanatoryamendment would, it is believed, forever terminate the existingdissensions, and restore peace and harmony among the States.

It ought not to be doubted that such an appeal to the arbitramentestablished by the Constitution itself would be received with favor byall the States of the Confederacy. In any event, it ought to be triedin a spirit of conciliation before any of these States shall separatethemselves from the Union.

When I entered upon the duties of the Presidential office, the aspectneither of our foreign nor domestic affairs was at all satisfactory.We were involved in dangerous complications with several nations,and two of our Territories were in a state of revolution against theGovernment. A restoration of the African slave trade had numerous andpowerful advocates. Unlawful military expeditions were countenanced bymany of our citizens, and were suffered, in defiance of the efforts ofthe Government, to escape from our shores for the purpose of making warupon the unoffending people of neighboring republics with whom we wereat peace. In addition to these and other difficulties, we experienceda revulsion in monetary affairs soon after my advent to power ofunexampled severity and of ruinous consequences to all the greatinterests of the country. When we take a retrospect of what was thenour condition and contrast this with its material prosperity at thetime of the late Presidential election, we have abundant reason toreturn our grateful thanks to that merciful Providence which has neverforsaken us as a nation in all our past trials.

Our relations with Great Britain are of the most friendly character.Since the commencement of my Administration the two dangerous questionsarising from the Clayton and Bulwer treaty and from the right of searchclaimed by the British Government have been amicably and honorablyadjusted.

The discordant constructions of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty betweenthe two Governments, which at different periods of the discussion borea threatening aspect, have resulted in a final settlement entirelysatisfactory to this Government. In my last annual message I informedCongress that the British Government had not then "completed treatyarrangements with the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua in pursuanceof the understanding between the two Governments. It is, nevertheless,confidently expected that this good work will ere long be accomplished."This confident expectation has since been fulfilled. Her BritannicMajesty concluded a treaty with Honduras on the 28th November, 1859,and with Nicaragua on the 28th August, 1860, relinquishing the Mosquitoprotectorate. Besides, by the former the Bay Islands are recognizedas a part of the Republic of Honduras. It may be observed that thestipulations of these treaties conform in every important particularto the amendments adopted by the Senate of the United States to thetreaty concluded at London on the 17th October, 1856, between the twoGovernments. It will be recollected that this treaty was rejected by theBritish Government because of its objection to the just and importantamendment of the Senate to the article relating to Ruatan and the otherislands in the Bay of Honduras.

It must be a source of sincere satisfaction to all classes of ourfellow-citizens, and especially to those engaged in foreign commerce,that the claim on the part of Great Britain forcibly to visit and searchAmerican merchant vessels on the high seas in time of peace has beenabandoned. This was by far the most dangerous question to the peace ofthe two countries which has existed since the War of 1812. Whilst itremained open they might at any moment have been precipitated into awar. This was rendered manifest by the exasperated state of publicfeeling throughout our entire country produced by the forcible search ofAmerican merchant vessels by British cruisers on the coast of Cuba inthe spring of 1858. The American people hailed with general acclaim theorders of the Secretary of the Navy to our naval force in the Gulf ofMexico "to protect all vessels of the United States on the high seasfrom search or detention by the vessels of war of any other nation."These orders might have produced an immediate collision between thenaval forces of the two countries. This was most fortunately preventedby an appeal to the justice of Great Britain and to the law of nationsas expounded by her own most eminent jurists.

The only question of any importance which still remains open is thedisputed title between the two Governments to the island of San Juan,in the vicinity of Washington Territory. As this question is stillunder negotiation, it is not deemed advisable at the present momentto make any other allusion to the subject.

The recent visit of the Prince of Wales, in a private character, to thepeople of this country has proved to be a most auspicious event. In itsconsequences it can not fail to increase the kindred and kindly feelingswhich I trust may ever actuate the Government and people of bothcountries in their political and social intercourse with each other.

With France, our ancient and powerful ally, our relations continueto be of the most friendly character. A decision has recently beenmade by a French judicial tribunal, with the approbation of the ImperialGovernment, which can not fail to foster the sentiments of mutualregard that have so long existed between the two countries. Under theFrench law no person can serve in the armies of France unless he bea French citizen. The law of France recognizing the natural right ofexpatriation, it follows as a necessary consequence that a Frenchman bythe fact of having become a citizen of the United States has changed hisallegiance and has lost his native character. He can not therefore becompelled to serve in the French armies in case he should return to hisnative country. These principles were announced in 1852 by the Frenchminister of war and in two late cases have been confirmed by the Frenchjudiciary. In these, two natives of France have been discharged fromthe French army because they had become American citizens. To employthe language of our present minister to France, who has rendered goodservice on this occasion, "I do not think our French naturalizedfellow-citizens will hereafter experience much annoyance on thissubject,"

I venture to predict that the time is not far distant when the othercontinental powers will adopt the same wise and just policy which hasdone so much honor to the enlightened Government of the Emperor. In anyevent, our Government is bound to protect the rights of our naturalizedcitizens everywhere to the same extent as though they had drawn theirfirst breath in this country. We can recognize no distinction betweenour native and naturalized citizens.

Between the great Empire of Russia and the United States the mutualfriendship and regard which has so long existed still continues toprevail, and if possible to increase. Indeed, our relations with thatEmpire are all that we could desire. Our relations with Spain are nowof a more complicated, though less dangerous, character than they havebeen for many years. Our citizens have long held and continue to holdnumerous claims against the Spanish Government. These had been ablyurged for a series of years by our successive diplomatic representativesat Madrid, but without obtaining redress. The Spanish Government finallyagreed to institute a joint commission for the adjustment of theseclaims, and on the 5th day of March, 1860, concluded a convention forthis purpose with our present minister at Madrid.

Under this convention what have been denominated the "Cuban claims,"amounting to $128,635.54, in which more than 100 of our fellow-citizensare interested, were recognized, and the Spanish Government agreed topay $100,000 of this amount "within three months following the exchangeof ratifications." The payment of the remaining $28,635.54 was to awaitthe decision of the commissioners for or against the _Amistad_ claim;but in any event the balance was to be paid to the claimants either bySpain or the United States. These terms, I have every reason to know,are highly satisfactory to the holders of the Cuban claims. Indeed, theyhave made a formal offer authorizing the State Department to settlethese claims and to deduct the amount of the _Amistad_ claim from thesums which they are entitled to receive from Spain. This offer, ofcourse, can not be accepted. All other claims of citizens of the UnitedStates against Spain, or the subjects of the Queen of Spain against theUnited States, including the _Amistad_ claim, were by this conventionreferred to a board of commissioners in the usual form. Neither thevalidity of the _Amistad_ claim nor of any other claim against eitherparty, with the single exception of the Cuban claims, was recognizedby the convention. Indeed, the Spanish Government did not insistthat the validity of the _Amistad_ claim should be thus recognized,notwithstanding its payment had been recommended to Congress by twoof my predecessors, as well as by myself, and an appropriation forthat purpose had passed the Senate of the United States.

They were content that it should be submitted to the board forexamination and decision like the other claims. Both Governments werebound respectively to pay the amounts awarded to the several claimants"at such times and places as may be fixed by and according to the tenorof said awards."

I transmitted this convention to the Senate for their constitutionalaction on the 3d of May, 1860, and on the 27th of the succeeding Junethey determined that they would "not advise and consent" to itsratification.

These proceedings place our relations with Spain in an awkward andembarrassing position. It is more than probable that the finaladjustment of these claims will devolve upon my successor.

I reiterate the recommendation contained in my annual message ofDecember, 1858, and repeated in that of December, 1859, in favor of theacquisition of Cuba from Spain by fair purchase. I firmly believe thatsuch an acquisition would contribute essentially to the well-beingand prosperity of both countries in all future time, as well as provethe certain means of immediately abolishing the African slave tradethroughout the world. I would not repeat this recommendation upon thepresent occasion if I believed that the transfer of Cuba to the UnitedStates upon conditions highly favorable to Spain could justly tarnishthe national honor of the proud and ancient Spanish monarchy. Surely noperson ever attributed to the first Napoleon a disregard of the nationalhonor of France for transferring Louisiana to the United States fora fair equivalent, both in money and commercial advantages.

With the Emperor of Austria and the remaining continental powers ofEurope, including that of the Sultan, our relations continue to be ofthe most friendly character.

The friendly and peaceful policy pursued by the Government of the UnitedStates toward the Empire of China has produced the most satisfactoryresults. The treaty of Tien-tsin of the 18th June, 1858, has beenfaithfully observed by the Chinese authorities. The convention of the8th November, 1858, supplementary to this treaty, for the adjustmentand satisfaction of the claims of our citizens on China referred to inmy last annual message, has been already carried into effect so far asthis was practicable. Under this convention the sum of 500,000 taels,equal to about $700,000, was stipulated to be paid in satisfaction ofthe claims of American citizens out of the one-fifth of the receiptsfor tonnage, import, and export duties on American vessels at the portsof Canton, Shanghai, and Fuchau, and it was "agreed that this amountshall be in full liquidation of all claims of American citizens at thevarious ports to this date." Debentures for this amount, to wit, 300,000taels for Canton, 100,000 for Shanghai, and 100,000 for Fuchau, weredelivered, according to the terms of the convention, by the respectiveChinese collectors of the customs of these ports to the agent selectedby our minister to receive the same. Since that time the claims of ourcitizens have been adjusted by the board of commissioners appointed forthat purpose under the act of March 3, 1859, and their awards, whichproved satisfactory to the claimants, have been approved by ourminister. In the aggregate they amount to the sum of $498,694.78. Theclaimants have already received a large proportion of the sums awardedto them out of the fund provided, and it is confidently expected thatthe remainder will ere long be entirely paid. After the awards shallhave been satisfied there will remain a surplus of more than $200,000at the disposition of Congress. As this will, in equity, belong to theChinese Government, would not justice require its appropriation to somebenevolent object in which the Chinese may be specially interested?

Our minister to China, in obedience to his instructions, has remainedperfectly neutral in the war between Great Britain and France and theChinese Empire, although, in conjunction with the Russian minister, hewas ever ready and willing, had the opportunity offered, to employ hisgood offices in restoring peace between the parties. It is but an act ofsimple justice, both to our present minister and his predecessor, tostate that they have proved fully equal to the delicate, trying, andresponsible positions in which they have on different occasions beenplaced.

The ratifications of the treaty with Japan concluded at Yeddo on the29th July, 1858, were exchanged at Washington on the 22d May last, andthe treaty itself was proclaimed on the succeeding day. There is goodreason to expect that under its protection and influence our trade andintercourse with that distant and interesting people will rapidlyincrease.

The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged with unusualsolemnity. For this purpose the Tycoon had accredited three of hismost distinguished subjects as envoys extraordinary and ministersplenipotentiary, who were received and treated with marked distinctionand kindness, both by the Government and people of the United States.There is every reason to believe that they have returned to their nativeland entirely satisfied with their visit and inspired by the mostfriendly feelings for our country. Let us ardently hope, in the languageof the treaty itself, that "there shall henceforward be perpetual peaceand friendship between the United States of America and His Majesty theTycoon of Japan and his successors."

With the wise, conservative, and liberal Government of the Empire ofBrazil our relations continue to be of the most amicable character.

The exchange of the ratifications of the convention with the Republicof New Granada signed at Washington on the 10th of September, 1857, hasbeen long delayed from accidental causes for which neither party iscensurable. These ratifications were duly exchanged in this city on the5th of November last. Thus has a controversy been amicably terminatedwhich had become so serious at the period of my inauguration as torequire me, on the 17th of April, 1857, to direct our minister to demandhis passports and return to the United States.

Under this convention the Government of New Granada has speciallyacknowledged itself to be responsible to our citizens "for damageswhich were caused by the riot at Panama on the 15th April, 1856." Theseclaims, together with other claims of our citizens which had been longurged in vain, are referred for adjustment to a board of commissioners.I submit a copy of the convention to Congress, and recommend thelegislation necessary to carry it into effect.

Persevering efforts have been made for the adjustment of the claimsof American citizens against the Government of Costa Rica, and I amhappy to inform you that these have finally prevailed. A convention wassigned at the city of San Jose on the 2d July last, between the ministerresident of the United States in Costa Rica and the plenipotentiaries ofthat Republic, referring these claims to a board of commissioners andproviding for the payment of their awards. This convention will besubmitted immediately to the Senate for their constitutional action.

The claims of our citizens upon the Republic of Nicaragua have not yetbeen provided for by treaty, although diligent efforts for this purposehave been made by our minister resident to that Republic. These arestill continued, with a fair prospect of success.

Our relations with Mexico remain in a most unsatisfactory condition.In my last two annual messages I discussed extensively the subject ofthese relations, and do not now propose to repeat at length the factsand arguments then presented. They proved conclusively that our citizensresiding in Mexico and our merchants trading thereto had suffered aseries of wrongs and outrages such as we have never patiently borne fromany other nation. For these our successive ministers, invoking the faithof treaties, had in the name of their country persistently demandedredress and indemnification, but without the slightest effect. Indeed,so confident had the Mexican authorities become of our patient endurancethat they universally believed they might commit these outrages uponAmerican citizens with absolute impunity. Thus wrote our minister in1856, and expressed the opinion that "nothing but a manifestation ofthe power of the Government and of its purpose to punish these wrongswill avail."

Afterwards, in 1857, came the adoption of a new constitution for Mexico,the election of a President and Congress under its provisions, and theinauguration of the President. Within one short month, however, thisPresident was expelled from the capital by a rebellion in the army, andthe supreme power of the Republic was assigned to General Zuloaga. Thisusurper was in his turn soon compelled to retire and give place toGeneral Miramon.

Under the constitution which had thus been adopted Senor Juarez, aschief justice of the supreme court, became the lawful President of theRepublic, and it was for the maintenance of the constitution and hisauthority derived from it that the civil war commenced and stillcontinues to be prosecuted.

Throughout the year 1858 the constitutional party grew stronger andstronger. In the previous history of Mexico a successful militaryrevolution at the capital had almost universally been the signal forsubmission throughout the Republic. Not so on the present occasion.A majority of the citizens persistently sustained the constitutionalGovernment. When this was recognized, in April, 1859, by the Governmentof the United States, its authority extended over a large majority ofthe Mexican States and people, including Vera Cruz and all the otherimportant seaports of the Republic. From that period our commerce withMexico began to revive, and the constitutional Government has affordedit all the protection in its power.

Meanwhile the Government of Miramon still held sway at the capital andover the surrounding country, and continued its outrages against thefew American citizens who still had the courage to remain within itspower. To cap the climax, after the battle of Tacubaya, in April, 1859,General Marquez ordered three citizens of the United States, two of themphysicians, to be seized in the hospital at that place, taken out andshot, without crime and without trial. This was done, notwithstandingour unfortunate countrymen were at the moment engaged in the holy causeof affording relief to the soldiers of both parties who had been woundedin the battle, without making any distinction between them.

The time had arrived, in my opinion, when this Government was boundto exert its power to avenge and redress the wrongs of our citizensand to afford them protection in Mexico. The interposing obstacle wasthat the portion of the country under the sway of Miramon could not bereached without passing over territory under the jurisdiction of theconstitutional Government. Under these circumstances I deemed it my dutyto recommend to Congress in my last annual message the employment ofa sufficient military force to penetrate into the interior, where theGovernment of Miramon was to be found, with or, if need be, without theconsent of the Juarez Government, though it was not doubted that thisconsent could be obtained. Never have I had a clearer conviction onany subject than of the justice as well as wisdom of such a policy.No other alternative was left except the entire abandonment of ourfellow-citizens who had gone to Mexico under the faith of treatiesto the systematic injustice, cruelty, and oppression of Miramon'sGovernment. Besides, it is almost certain that the simple authorityto employ this force would of itself have accomplished all our objectswithout striking a single blow. The constitutional Government would thenere this have been established at the City of Mexico, and would havebeen ready and willing to the extent of its ability to do us justice.

In addition--and I deem this a most important consideration--EuropeanGovernments would have been deprived of all pretext to interfere in theterritorial and domestic concerns of Mexico. We should thus have beenrelieved from the obligation of resisting, even by force should thisbecome necessary, any attempt by these Governments to deprive ourneighboring Republic of portions of her territory--a duty from whichwe could not shrink without abandoning the traditional and establishedpolicy of the American people. I am happy to observe that, firmlyrelying upon the justice and good faith of these Governments, thereis no present danger that such a contingency will happen.

Having discovered that my recommendations would not be sustained byCongress, the next alternative was to accomplish in some degree,if possible, the same objects by treaty stipulations with theconstitutional Government. Such treaties were accordingly concludedby our late able and excellent minister to Mexico, and on the 4th ofJanuary last were submitted to the Senate for ratification. As thesehave not yet received the final action of that body, it would beimproper for me to present a detailed statement of their provisions.Still, I may be permitted to express the opinion in advance that theyare calculated to promote the agricultural, manufacturing, andcommercial interests of the country and to secure our just influencewith an adjoining Republic as to whose fortunes and fate we can neverfeel indifferent, whilst at the same time they provide for the paymentof a considerable amount toward the satisfaction of the claims of ourinjured fellow-citizens.

At the period of my inauguration I was confronted in Kansas by arevolutionary government existing under what is called the "Topekaconstitution." Its avowed object was to subdue the Territorialgovernment by force and to inaugurate what was called the "Topekagovernment" in its stead. To accomplish this object an extensivemilitary organization was formed, and its command intrusted to the mostviolent revolutionary leaders. Under these circumstances it became myimperative duty to exert the whole constitutional power of the Executiveto prevent the flames of civil war from again raging in Kansas, which inthe excited state of the public mind, both North and South, might haveextended into the neighboring States. The hostile parties in Kansas hadbeen inflamed against each other by emissaries both from the North andthe South to a degree of malignity without parallel in our history.To prevent actual collision and to assist the civil magistrates inenforcing the laws, a strong detachment of the Army was stationed inthe Territory, ready to aid the marshal and his deputies when lawfullycalled upon as a _posse comilatus_ in the execution of civil andcriminal process. Still, the troubles in Kansas could not have beenpermanently settled without an election by the people.

The ballot box is the surest arbiter of disputes among freemen. Underthis conviction every proper effort was employed to induce the hostileparties to vote at the election of delegates to frame a Stateconstitution, and afterwards at the election to decide whether Kansasshould be a slave or free State.

The insurgent party refused to vote at either, lest this might beconsidered a recognition on their part of the Territorial governmentestablished by Congress. A better spirit, however, seemed soon afterto prevail, and the two parties met face to face at the third election,held on the first Monday of January, 1858, for members of thelegislature and State officers under the Lecompton constitution. Theresult was the triumph of the antislavery party at the polls. Thisdecision of the ballot box proved clearly that this party were in themajority, and removed the danger of civil war. From that time we haveheard little or nothing of the Topeka government, and all serious dangerof revolutionary troubles in Kansas was then at an end.

The Lecompton constitution, which had been thus recognized at this Stateelection by the votes of both political parties in Kansas, wastransmitted to me with the request that I should present it to Congress.This I could not have refused to do without violating my clearest andstrongest convictions of duty. The constitution and all the proceedingswhich preceded and followed its formation were fair and regular on theirface. I then believed, and experience has proved, that the interests ofthe people of Kansas would have been best consulted by its admissionas a State into the Union, especially as the majority within a briefperiod could have amended the constitution according to their will andpleasure. If fraud existed in all or any of these proceedings, it wasnot for the President but for Congress to investigate and determine thequestion of fraud and what ought to be its consequences. If at the firsttwo elections the majority refused to vote, it can not be pretendedthat this refusal to exercise the elective franchise could invalidatean election fairly held under lawful authority, even if they had notsubsequently voted at the third election. It is true that the wholeconstitution had not been submitted to the people, as I always desired;but the precedents are numerous of the admission of States into theUnion without such submission. It would not comport with my presentpurpose to review the proceedings of Congress upon the Lecomptonconstitution. It is sufficient to observe that their final action hasremoved the last vestige of serious revolutionary troubles. Thedesperate band recently assembled under a notorious outlaw in thesouthern portion of the Territory to resist the execution of the lawsand to plunder peaceful citizens will, I doubt not, be speedily subduedand brought to justice.

Had I treated the Lecompton constitution as a nullity and refusedto transmit it to Congress, it is not difficult to imagine, whilstrecalling the position of the country at that moment, what would havebeen the disastrous consequences, both in and out of the Territory,from such a dereliction of duty on the part of the Executive.

Peace has also been restored within the Territory of Utah, which at thecommencement of my Administration was in a state of open rebellion. Thiswas the more dangerous, as the people, animated by a fanatical spiritand intrenched within their distant mountain fastnesses, might have madea long and formidable resistance. Cost what it might, it was necessaryto bring them into subjection to the Constitution and the laws. Soundpolicy, therefore, as well as humanity, required that this object shouldif possible be accomplished without the effusion of blood. This couldonly be effected by sending a military force into the Territorysufficiently strong to convince the people that resistance would behopeless, and at the same time to offer them a pardon for past offenseson condition of immediate submission to the Government. This policy waspursued with eminent success, and the only cause for regret is the heavyexpenditure required to march a large detachment of the Army to thatremote region and to furnish it subsistence.

Utah is now comparatively peaceful and quiet, and the military force hasbeen withdrawn, except that portion of it necessary to keep the Indiansin check and to protect the emigrant trains on their way to our Pacificpossessions.

In my first annual message I promised to employ my best exertions incooperation with Congress to reduce the expenditures of the Governmentwithin the limits of a wise and judicious economy. An overflowingTreasury had produced habits of prodigality and extravagance which couldonly be gradually corrected. The work required both time and patience.I applied myself diligently to this task from the beginning and wasaided by the able and energetic efforts of the heads of the differentExecutive Departments. The result of our labors in this good cause didnot appear in the sum total of our expenditures for the first two years,mainly in consequence of the extraordinary expenditure necessarilyincurred in the Utah expedition and the very large amount of thecontingent expenses of Congress during this period. These greatlyexceeded the pay and mileage of the members. For the year ending June30, 1858, whilst the pay and mileage amounted to $1,490,214, thecontingent expenses rose to $2,093,309.79; and for the year endingJune 30, 1859, whilst the pay and mileage amounted to $859,093.66, thecontingent expenses amounted to $1,431,565.78. I am happy, however,to be able to inform you that during the last fiscal year, endingJune 30, 1860, the total expenditures of the Government in all itsbranches--legislative, executive, and judicial--exclusive of the publicdebt, were reduced to the sum of $55,402,465.46. This conclusivelyappears from the books of the Treasury. In the year ending June 30,1858, the total expenditure, exclusive of the public debt, amountedto $71,901,129.77, and that for the year ending June 30, 1859, to$66,346,226.13. Whilst the books of the Treasury show an actualexpenditure of $59,848,474.72 for the year ending June 30, 1860,including $1,040,667.71 for the contingent expenses of Congress, theremust be deducted from this amount the sum of $4,296,009.26, with theinterest upon it of $150,000, appropriated by the act of February 15,1860, "for the purpose of supplying the deficiency in the revenues anddefraying the expenses of the Post-Office Department for the year endingJune 30, 1859." This sum, therefore, justly chargeable to the year 1859,must be deducted from the sum of $59,848,474.72 in order to ascertainthe expenditure for the year ending June 30, 1860, which leaves abalance for the expenditures of that year of $55,402,465.46. Theinterest on the public debt, including Treasury notes, for the samefiscal year, ending June 30, 1860, amounted to $3,177,314.62, which,added to the above sum of $55,402,465.46, makes the aggregateof $58,579,780.08.

It ought in justice to be observed that several of the estimates fromthe Departments for the year ending June 30, 1860, were reduced byCongress below what was and still is deemed compatible with the publicinterest. Allowing a liberal margin of $2,500,000 for this reduction andfor other causes, it may be safely asserted that the sum of $61,000,000,or, at the most, $62,000,000, is amply sufficient to administer theGovernment and to pay the interest on the public debt, unless contingentevents should hereafter render extraordinary expenditures necessary.

This result has been attained in a considerable degree by the careexercised by the appropriate Departments in entering into publiccontracts. I have myself never interfered with the award of any suchcontract, except in a single case, with the Colonization Society,deeming it advisable to cast the whole responsibility in each case onthe proper head of the Department, with the general instruction thatthese contracts should always be given to the lowest and best bidder.It has ever been my opinion that public contracts are not a legitimatesource of patronage to be conferred upon personal or politicalfavorites, but that in all such cases a public officer is bound toact for the Government as a prudent individual would act for himself.

It is with great satisfaction I communicate the fact that since the dateof my last annual message not a single slave has been imported intothe United States in violation of the laws prohibiting the Africanslave trade. This statement is founded upon a thorough examination andinvestigation of the subject. Indeed, the spirit which prevailed sometime since among a portion of our fellow-citizens in favor of thistrade seems to have entirely subsided.

I also congratulate you upon the public sentiment which now existsagainst the crime of setting on foot military expeditions within thelimits of the United States to proceed from thence and make war uponthe people of unoffending States with whom we are at peace. In thisrespect a happy change has been effected since the commencement of myAdministration. It surely ought to be the prayer of every Christianand patriot that such expeditions may never again receive countenancein our country or depart from our shores.

It would be a useless repetition to do more than refer with earnestcommendation to my former recommendations in favor of the Pacificrailroad; of the grant of power to the President to employ the navalforce in the vicinity for the protection of the lives and propertyof our fellow-citizens passing in transit over the different CentralAmerican routes against sudden and lawless outbreaks and depredations,and also to protect American merchant vessels, their crews and cargoes,against violent and unlawful seizure and confiscation in the ports ofMexico and the South American Republics when these may be in a disturbedand revolutionary condition. It is my settled conviction that withoutsuch a power we do not afford that protection to those engaged in thecommerce of the country which they have a right to demand.

I again recommend to Congress the passage of a law, in pursuance ofthe provisions of the Constitution, appointing a day certain previousto the 4th March in each year of an odd number for the election ofRepresentatives throughout all the States. A similar power has alreadybeen exercised, with general approbation, in the appointment of thesame day throughout the Union for holding the election of electors forPresident and Vice-President of the United States. My attention wasearnestly directed to this subject from the fact that the Thirty-fifthCongress terminated on the 3d March, 1859, without making the necessaryappropriation for the service of the Post-Office Department. I was thenforced to consider the best remedy for this omission, and an immediatecall of the present Congress was the natural resort. Upon inquiry,however, I ascertained that fifteen out of the thirty-three Statescomposing the Confederacy were without Representatives, and thatconsequently these fifteen States would be disfranchised by such a call.These fifteen States will be in the same condition on the 4th Marchnext. Ten of them can not elect Representatives, according to existingState laws, until different periods, extending from the beginningof August next until the months of October and November. In my lastmessage I gave warning that in a time of sudden and alarming dangerthe salvation of our institutions might depend upon the power of thePresident immediately to assemble a full Congress to meet the emergency.

It is now quite evident that the financial necessities of the Governmentwill require a modification of the tariff during your present sessionfor the purpose of increasing the revenue. In this aspect, I desire toreiterate the recommendation contained in my last two annual messagesin favor of imposing specific instead of _ad valorem_ duties on allimported articles to which these can be properly applied. From longobservation and experience I am convinced that specific dutiesare necessary, both to protect the revenue and to secure to ourmanufacturing interests that amount of incidental encouragementwhich unavoidably results from a revenue tariff.

As an abstract proposition it may be admitted that _ad valorem_ dutieswould in theory be the most just and equal. But if the experience ofthis and of all other commercial nations has demonstrated that suchduties can not be assessed and collected without great frauds upon therevenue, then it is the part of wisdom to resort to specific duties.Indeed, from the very nature of an _ad valorem_ duty this must be theresult. Under it the inevitable consequence is that foreign goods willbe entered at less than their true value. The Treasury will thereforelose the duty on the difference between their real and fictitious value,and to this extent we are defrauded.

The temptations which _ad valorem_ duties present to a dishonestimporter are irresistible. His object is to pass his goods through thecustom-house at the very lowest valuation necessary to save them fromconfiscation. In this he too often succeeds in spite of the vigilance,of the revenue officers. Hence the resort to false invoices, one for thepurchaser and another for the custom-house, and to other expedients todefraud the Government. The honest importer produces his invoice to thecollector, stating the actual price, at which he purchased the articlesabroad. Not so the dishonest importer and the agent of the foreignmanufacturer. And here it may be observed that a very large proportionof the manufactures imported from abroad are consigned for sale tocommission merchants, who are mere agents employed by the manufacturers.In such cases no actual sale has been made to fix their value. Theforeign manufacturer, if he be dishonest, prepares an invoice of thegoods, not at their actual value, but at the very lowest rate necessaryto escape detection. In this manner the dishonest importer and theforeign manufacturer enjoy a decided advantage over the honest merchant.They are thus enabled to undersell the fair trader and drive him fromthe market. In fact the operation of this system has already driven fromthe pursuits of honorable commerce many of that class of regular andconscientious merchants whose character throughout the world is thepride of our country.

The remedy for these evils, is to be found in specific duties, sofar as this may be practicable. They dispense with any inquiry at thecustom-house into the actual cost or value of the article, and it paysthe precise amount of duty previously fixed by law. They present notemptations to the appraisers of foreign goods, who receive but smallsalaries, and might by undervaluation in a few cases render themselvesindependent.

Besides, specific duties best conform to the requisition in theConstitution that "no preference shall be given by any regulation ofcommerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another."Under our _ad valorem_ system such preferences are to some extentinevitable, and complaints have often been made that the spirit of thisprovision has been violated by a lower appraisement of the same articlesat one port than at another.

An impression strangely enough prevails to some extent that specificduties are necessarily protective duties. Nothing can be morefallacious. Great Britain glories in free trade, and yet her wholerevenue from imports is at the present moment collected under a systemof specific duties. It is a striking fact in this connection that in the